ArticlePloS one2018
Computerization and the future of primary care: A survey of general practitioners in the UK.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large Language Models in Perioperative Antithrombotic Management: A Blinded Scenario-Based Expert Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI tool assisting primary healthcare physicians to diagnostic and treatment tasks.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Care: Task-Specific Perspectives of Professionals in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring Physicians' Willingness to Integrate Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Ethical and Practical Insights From a Jordanian Cross-Sectional Survey.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Physician versus patient use of AI for diabetes prevention: public perceptions and comfort levels.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Weighing Costs and Benefits of Delay and the Acceptance of Two Decision Support Tools in Mental Health Care: Scoping Study Using Quantitative and Qualitative Data.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of UK General Practitioners' Views.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: Support or Additional Burden on Physicians' Healthcare Work?-A Qualitative Study.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Psychiatrists' and trainees' knowledge, perception, and readiness for integration of artificial intelligence in mental health care in Nigeria.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Investigating psychotherapists' attitudes towards artificial intelligence in psychotherapy.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in medicine: a mixed-methods survey of UK general practitioners.BMJ digital health & AI · 2025Article
- How do medical professionals make sense (or not) of AI? A social-media-based computational grounded theory study and an online survey.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Review
- Perspectives on virtual interviews and emerging technologies integration in family medicine residency programs: a cross-sectional survey study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Encompassing trust in medical AI from the perspective of medical students: a quantitative comparative study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Understanding, experience and attitudes towards artificial intelligence technologies for clinical decision support in hearing health: a mixed-methods survey of healthcare professionals in the UK.The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2024Article
- Analyzing Large Language Models' Responses to Common Lumbar Spine Fusion Surgery Questions: A Comparison Between ChatGPT and Bard.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Article
- Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England.BMJ open · 2024Article
- An evidence-based approach to artificial intelligence education for medical students: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care.
designCross sectional online survey.
participants1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom.
main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs' opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace-not merely aid-the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge.
resultsA total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time.
conclusionsThe majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs' in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.